Virginia Dem who livestreamed racy sex videos says she's a victim. Is she right?

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

58% : Indeed, even the service provider itself is protected under the law.
56% : However, this is not a deprivation of "seclusion" when Gibson is seeking public exposure.
48% : The use of the law to target the Washington Post or political critics would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.
39% : There is the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts: 652D Publicity Given to Private Life One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
37% : I am far more concerned about Gibson's view of criminal and constitutional law than I am about her alleged online fetish.
37% : I am far more concerned about Gibson's view of criminal and constitutional law than I am about her alleged online fetish.
35% : As shown below, the law makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to "maliciously" distribute nude or sexual images of another person with "intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.